The titles are in, the countdown is on and the deadline is near. The deadline for our dissertation plans to be turned in. I chose to cross into the "other side" - the theoretical side of things, the historicist analysis side, the 'discourse' side. I chose to write about Marx adn Smith and labour. This does take me away from ftom I liked calling teh practical side, the real issues that matter. It takes me away from debates that are current, taht are relevent. After all it is " history" of economic thought that I shall now be getting into. That by virtue of its own subject field makes it an archaic discussion. Or does it? Is it really irrelevent. Dr Watson insists untiringly on 'theory', how tehory is important, how perspetives are important, an how debates in literature are important. I would be lying if I said, I did not roll my eyes half teh times, thinking " ,I am studying political econoy fro crying out loud. Im doing this for one year. Do I really haev to bore myself to dealth with theory.". Often I would add sullenly- ' besides, not everything fits into these alleged tehoretical perspectives'. But now as I read of Marx and Smith - one and half and two and half centuries ago work respectively, I am forced to think back. I am almost compelled to agree with Dr Watson. Theory is as a matter of fact teh issue itself- one drafted out so it may not remain relevent to the year alone, but may continue to hold its relevence in teh years andin our case centuries to come. The debate between tehory and practicality is not a debate at all. When Marx wrote he wrote from within the contemporary English, german, Fresh and Belgian society and it was very much practical. Today it is hardly dead either. When Smith wrote it was very much contemporary economics that he wrote of. When he wrote, if television existed, teh Americanb revolution, the navigation laws and corn prices that he writes of would have made headlines. Today, too his work stands far from irrelevent. The matter is merely oneof adaptation. Where, however, we perhaps to lack in studying political economy, is in believing that we could use one theory to explain our point of view. That we must decide on our leanings and then follow them through so as to not expose ourselves to allegations of any implied contradictions. These need not be the shackles that a political economists works bearing. It is not pertinent at all to be a liberalist or a marxist or a critical theorist or a nationalist or a globalist or any other 'ist' for that matter. It in fact is pertinen that we understand all the ists together. That we see tehir complementarity. Becasue the reality of the world is not gridded out so that we may only fall within one grid at all times, nor is it so simple and unchanging that we can follow one line of thinking all through. I think it is myopic to believe that. Just as it is mypoic for a feminist to never agree with teh hard core economist or the 'evil' banker just because her stand syas so. Or for the free market liberal to never agree withe the Marxist jsut because he has proclaimed his belief once. To adapt is not be fickle minded. It is to grow. Theory is important. A theory is not.